[PGT] They lost to the Coyotes

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Definitely the worst Flames season I can remember. Rock bottom in terms of the combination of failure to compete, underachieving and dreadfully boring hockey.

I feel for you season ticket holders.

Meh...Hopefully a couple thousand vote with their wallets. I’ll be back again next year. Would be great to move up another row or two. Flames are on this ice with attendance. I wonder if tivket prices will go up again?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 3rd liner

It's been said already by many, but NO bargain-basement hires for a new coach please. Get a proven winner. These off-the-radar hires (be they coaches or players- remember Roman Cervenka? Me neither....) rarely work out. The fan base deserves it after the GG experiment. Not an NHL coach.

Taking risks on players like Cervenka isn't really a problem.

However, you don't take a race car that you think might do well, but maybe not win it all, and hand the keys to your drunk uncle.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Dion

Better not be some rookie coach next year. Time to spend some money and get one with a proven track record. If Quenneville becomes available you back up the brinks truck.

The most realistic hope is sutter.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dammage79

You can shoot 6 million shots a game for 82 games a season and rank 24th in the league in goals for per game, Flames proved it, know why? because they don't set up, there's no bodies in the shooting lanes to bounce pucks off of twice on the way to the net. It is BAD coaching and bad system. And yes high volume shot generation is a BAD thing!

They don't get those bounces because no one is near a rebound or in a lane. Only to be there regularly is Tkachuk. Guess what? it was working with his 24 goals.

28 shots a game into a goalies tummy isn't good hockey. It's bad hockey, end of story.

The thing is though most of what you said isn’t true though.

According to NHL stats the Flames are 4th in the league in tipped shots. My guess would be that means we generate traffic.

Honestly everyone just makes stuff up on the shot quality. One day it’s Not enough shots close to the net, the next day it’s not enough shots off the rush, and I guess today it’s not enough shots when we are set up with traffic.

I have no idea how the Flames get so many shots because according to all the people “watching” the game we don’t shoot off the rush, when we are set up, or with any traffic. Just open lane, unscreened wrist shots from the point I guess.

Also your statement that high volume shot generation is a bad thing is 100% inaccurate.

He are the league leaders in Shots on Goal over he last 10 years:

2017: Pittsburgh (Won Cup)
2016: Pittsburgh (Won Cup)
2015: Chicago (Won Cup)
2014: San Jose (Kings Won Cup Ranked 7th)
2013: Ottawa (Chicago Won Cup Ranked 5th)
2012: Pittsburgh (LA Won Cup 11th)
2011: San Jose (Boston Won Cup Ranked 3rd)
2010: Chicago (Won Cup)
2009: Detroit (Lost Finals)
2008: Detroit (Won Cup)

Somebody should tell all those teams that high volume shot generation is a bad thing and they did it wrong.

The only thing remotely correct in your post was about the team shooting into the goalies chest. That doesn’t mean generating high shot volume is bad though, it means you have #### shooting talent (true) and a piss poor shooting percentage.

There are a lot of issues with this team this season but trying to frame the fact that the team generating a lot of shots as a bad thing is one of the stupidest things I’ve seen this fan base spin to try and explain our poor results.

[nik-]

something something correlation vs causation

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I purposely did not watch this game. I will not watch another Flames hockey game with Glen Gulutzan as head coach. Whether that is 2 games (I hope!), 9 games, or 90 games (help us if he stays onboard), I refuse to watch such a poor brand of boring hockey. I wouldnt mind a boring defensive minded team if it meant the Flames are winning, the problem is they are boring and bad at the same time.

Wow that's a lot of suffering. On the bright side at least your not going on a hunger strike!

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Dion

Better not be some rookie coach next year. Time to spend some money and get one with a proven track record. If Quenneville becomes available you back up the brinks truck.

I'm skeptical Quenneville or any coach of his stature would want to come here.

[mikephoen]

Feels like the players are trying to make Treliving’s decision as easy as possible. He can’t keep a coach that the entire team has quit on.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Honestly everyone just makes stuff up on the shot quality. One day it’s Not enough shots close to the net, the next day it’s not enough shots off the rush, and I guess today it’s not enough shots when we are set up with traffic.

I have no idea how the Flames get so many shots because according to all the people watching the game we don’t shoot off the rush, when we are set up, or with any traffic. Just open lane, unscreened wrist shots from the point I guess.

Kent Wilson had an article on this today

Calgary is currently second in the league at generating HDCF [high danger shot attempts], with 12.8 per 60 minutes at even strength. Only six teams create 12 HD shot attempts or more per hour this year.

If we look at high danger shooting percentage, however, things change. Calgary's HDSH% is just 11.16 percent, good for 27th in the NHL, with the median rate falling at about 12.7 percent. Good looks, bad execution.

https://theathletic.com/276342/2018/...quality-shots/

Maybe this team sucks at shooting the puck. It's unfortunate because we didn't see such adverse shooting percentage metrics last season.

[Sgrath]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The advanced metrics are what they are - just more information to digest.

What they are not is this predictive model that is often trotted out.

Flames under Hartley were horrible in most advanced metrics, and were pointed out as being 'unsustainable'. They kept that 'unsustainable' tag for 1.5 seasons (until the goalies crapped the bed, ran into some injuries, and had the second pairing defencemen suddenly regress horribly).

Flames under Gulutzan were advanced stat darlings and they were 'about to break out' all season long, but never did.

Just on one single team we have such polar opposites of what the advanced metrics were predicting. Winning under Hartley was unsustainable, but it was sustained long enough. Losing under Gulutzan was unsustainable, but was likewise sustained long enough.

The model is faulty. The analysis that people keep pushing doesn't have a confidence interval worth squat. It uses an indirect measure of possession (shots taken), and then goes on to explicitly state that it is indeed possession. It is not, and the confidence interval disproves any significant correlation IMO. Just on this one team you have results that are in complete disagreement.

Advanced metrics ARE useful, and they ARE interesting. The trouble with them is that they are incomplete, and you have nonsense stats like "PDO" that are 100% garbage (for heaven's sake, a good team with good offensive players, and with great defensive players and a strong goalie will have better than 100 AND IT IS NOT EXPECTED TO REGRESS TO THE MEAN in a season or even in the future - that's WHY they are a good team!).

Too many junk stats, too many inferences on metrics with too loose of causal relationships, and too many people shrieking about their predictive nature.

The Flames played for CORSI, and they were damn good at it all season. I hope Treliving has seen that strong CORSI should not be a system that you play for, but rather a natural by-product of having a good team playing well.

Goodhart's law strikes again - "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

Oh well some more games to get through as a fan and then maybe get out and enjoy summer

[Strange Brew]

I don’t have a whole lot of respect for players that quit on a coach.

[DJones]

People are really ripping on Jankowski?

Oh no, he's a mediocre NHL 3rd liner.

How is that a bad thing for a rookie? Especially when he's been on a constant rotating shift of medicore linemates. It's been Bennett and then a rotating list of 4th liners, demoted players, and injured players.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm skeptical Quenneville or any coach of his stature would want to come here.

I would think someone like Quenneville would see an opportunity like this as a challenge. He did is thing in Chicago and would probably relish an opportunity to build another winner.

[DomeFoam]

hacked

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don’t have a whole lot of respect for players that quit on a coach.

Well ... when you hear things like this.

Originally Posted by shadowlord

I had a hunch we were going to lose this game when I heard GG's pregame interview on the Fan.

He said after the first goal last night in Vegas (that deflected in off Stone), the guys wanted to score a goal right away, but instead, GG told them to stick with the system, they still had to plenty of time left to even the score.

I can't believe he's still preaching to stick to his system the night after that 4-0 drubbing. I'm pretty sure the players have no confidence or faith in GG.

What do you expect? Newsflash Glen, your system isn't exactly killin' it out there. Fans see it, the players clearly see it, maybe take the reins off for a few shifts and see what happens?

When a boss is stubbornly sticking to an ineffective plan, it's pretty hard to work for that boss.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by nik-

something something correlation vs causation

Assuming this was in response to my post.

I never said the team should strive to take lots of shots - generating shots should be an outcome of good play not a goal you try to achieve.

It was a direct reply to a statement that “generating high shot volume is bad” which is unquestionably false. Most successful teams generate lots of shots, it’s good to generate shots, it always has been and it’s not some advanced stat.

More shots than the other team is a good outcome and has been forever.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well ... when you hear things like this.



What do you expect? Newsflash Glen, your system isn't exactly killin' it out there. Fans see it, the players clearly see it, maybe take the reins off for a few shifts and see what happens?

When a boss is stubbornly sticking to an ineffective plan, it's pretty hard to work for that boss.

Then play for yourself, your teammates, your fans. It’s called being a professional.

Players that quit in a coach will find other reasons to quit when things get tough.

[Ashasx]

GG's post game interview really bugs me. He talks about two specific plays that led to low danger turnovers that somehow found their way down the ice and into the back of their net.

Why are these plays such a focus? These plays happen dozens of times a period, yet it seems every time it happens to the Flames, it goes into the back of their net.

Most of the goals in this league are the result of defensive breakdowns of the opposition team. It's no wonder the Flames grip their sticks so tight.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Assuming this was in response to my post.

I never said the team should strive to take lots of shots - generating shots should be an outcome of good play not a goal you try to achieve.

It was a direct reply to a statement that “generating high shot volume is bad” which is unquestionably false. Most successful teams generate lots of shots, it’s good to generate shots, it always has been and it’s not some advanced stat.

More shots than the other team is a good outcome and has been forever.

I think a lot of people are taking this tone at this point because they're sick of seeing the shot/corsi argument. Teams are different, shots are different and the situations leading up to those shots are different.

Those stats are meaningless in the case of this team. Who cares that successful teams also had high shots? Serving up 20 extra low danger muffins a game doesn't do a whole lot for success, clearly.

[zamler]

I don't see how the players have quite on the coach. They've done their best to play the system but it doesn't work, it wears them down and eventually they break.